The politics of marching

Between 15 and 17 March an estimated 100,000 people took to the streets nationwide in a series of organised protest marches to give voice to their discontent with the current Abbott administration. There was a smorgasbord of issues represented at the protests, from refugee rights and environmental issues to health, welfare and education. The one sentiment that everyone seemed to share was an utter disgust with Abbott and the policies of the LNP.

In one respect, the marches were extraordinary. They attracted numbers out on to the streets that we haven’t seen since the protests against the Iraq war in 2004. The Melbourne march alone boasted somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000 people. Also significant was the way in which the protests were organised. None of the usual suspects were involved, either as instigators or as the main organisers of the events. Despite some suspicions that the marches were an ALP or Greens front, this was a genuine grassroots movement: ordinary citizens coming together and organising a political action to express their dissatisfaction with government policies.

Yet on another level, there were points at which the entire affair was a little lacklustre. It sometimes felt like we were all going through the motions but very few had the conviction that we were actually going to change anything or have a genuine political influence. The march itself was the same as any number of marches that people like myself go to every other weekend. We meet at the State Library, cruise down Swanston street (on the road or footpath depending on the numbers), the optional sit-in on the corner of Bourke and Swanston, followed by some chanting and speeches outside of Parliament. I imagine that some of those who turned up for the first time couldn’t help but ask themselves what good they had achieved with their trip into the city that day.

But nor is the protest as it has currently played out either a ‘new form of activism’, as Van Badham has argued, or even a particularly desirable version of what we have been doing for decades. It would be difficult to argue against the fact that the protest was a positive development for progressive Australia, but much more would need to be done for it to constitute a dangerous threat to the government. Abbott certainly played the fool in suggesting that he was somehow unaware that the protests were taking place, but he does not yet need to respond. Presently, he seems to be gesturing me towards Gandhi’s over-quoted phrase, ‘first they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win’. Between Abbott and the Murdoch press, phases one and two have already been completed. Historically, the problem has been that although we occasionally get to phase three, phase four is rarely ever achieved.

But what are the lessons from March? The truth lies somewhere in between the current responses of despondency and jubilation. There are some things that worked really well. In fact, the organisers deserve a huge pat on the back for their outstanding efforts. But there is a lot that could be done better next time and other things that we have learnt from the process. I have suggested three main points that could be said for and against the march.

1. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things

It wasn’t just ‘professional protesters’ who organised this march. It was instigated by folk who had never before organised such a thing and was attended by an incredibly broad cross-section of society. It was the first time I have ever seen the ‘hipster left’ at a political event, and combined with the teachers, nurses, social workers, students, unionists, parents, and other professions, it made quite a diverse crowd. People no longer need institutions or organisations as forms of political legitimacy. We now know that protests will be able to pop up any time and in any place. The field is broadening and it is likely to be continually invaded by more first-time players and new political actors. If there is sufficient demand from sectors of the community, social media provides an incredibly easy-to-negotiate platform from which to build enormous political presence on the ground with minimal organisational skills.

2. Ripe for the picketing

A key reason for the success of the march and the large crowds in attendance was the sheer number of unpopular government actions across a wide range of issues. Abbott had kicked a number of hornets’ nests during his first few months in office and although he is currently confident that these are people he can afford to lose (or had already lost in the first place), the numbers may begin to add up. Abbott was never popular, and as a fighter and a highly antagonistic debater, he is an easy man to hate. Future political actions should be conscious of time-sensitive issues and attempt to capitalise in the days and weeks following unpopular government decisions.

3. The importance of mass mobilisation

This protest proved the on-going importance and power of getting people out on to the streets as a political show of force. There was an incredible feeling of empowerment within certain parts of the crowd. The feeling of taking part in something bigger than yourself, of clarifying and expressing political views, and of seeing the solidarity between different groups in action was a great experience. In a world of clicktivism, slacktivism and other a-political ‘isms’, it was empowering to see people on the streets marching for what they believed. This wasn’t simply an empty gesture or a wrong-headed or misguided expression of anger, it was a group of people who were justifiably angry with their government who united to have their voices heard.

Nonetheless, to be an effective tool for social change we need to clarify a number of important elements of the protest. After the experience of Occupy, it is unclear why such an enormous event could have taken place without those with knowledge and experience offering more guidance and support to the organisers. The event lacked an adequate articulation of a political position and appeared naive in its attempts to brand itself as a ‘non-partisan’ affair. If you’re against the government then you have taken sides. It may not be Labor’s, but you are certainly not the apolitical entity that you claim to be.

There are at least three things to be taken from the outcomes of the march.

1. Marches should be connected with longer-term campaigns

The biggest problem on the day was that we were witness to one of the largest expressions of dissent in recent memory, followed by everyone returning to their daily lives with no prospects for how they could continue their involvement in organised opposition. Aside from the already-organised civic groups, there was a distinct lack of ‘where to from here?’ questions being asked. Organisers need to find ways to funnel people in attendance into larger pressure groups and institutions working in different areas. There are a number of ways people could have been encouraged to participate more. One option would have been to hold more extensive meetings preceding the event, which would have opened up the organising efforts to a broader range of people with different backgrounds and experiences. This way, more individuals and groups would have felt a greater ownership of and involvement in the march. Another important addition could have been to create a number of discussion and action groups that would meet following the march in Treasury Gardens in which people could organise themselves into their particular areas of interest and plan future action.

2. Mediating institutions need to intervene between individuals and the mass

It is easy to get lost in a mass of people. While some went with their friends and others attended with organisations, a protest is not an environment in which everyone would feel comfortable attending alone. It is important to have larger organisations and institutions at marches within which individuals can find a place. The feeling of one’s isolation in a sea of people would only add to a sentiment of powerlessness and the inevitability of government policies. Encouraging the mass to break up into smaller collectivities and units allows people to engage with others at the protest and organise more effectively. These institutions have a role to play before, during and after the event. I am not arguing that people should be driven into different groups like cattle, but rather, that we need to start organising ourselves into smaller affinity groups. This also provides for greater possibilities of achieving the first objective of sustaining longer-term campaigns.

3. Organisers must think more strategically about the methods and goals of the march

A number of people with whom I spoke at the event thought that there was a lack of a clear political position from the event organisers. In their quest to remain non-partisan and to keep the march as broad as possible, there was no talk about which key principles or strategic goals were important or what kind of politics was being offered. Although on one level enunciating clear positions appears to limit potential involvement in a march, it actually serves to strengthen and unify those present and allows for the beginning of a continuing dialogue around shared goals and strategies. Yes, we know we are all angry, but what are we doing about it, and what kind of vision do we have for a future progressive Australia that isn’t simply ‘fuck Abbott’?

Tactics was another problem on the day. A march through the city is an effective way of mobilising groups and in having one’s voice heard, but it isn’t a targeted strike against a political opponent. Marches are only effective when used as one tactic as part of a broader strategy. One of the interesting developments that occurred in social movement studies in the 1970s was the realisation that deeply unpopular governments could remain in power for a long time so long as they held on to key positions of strategic power within the regime. What proved pivotal in the downfall of hated governments was not the degree to which their political enemies loathed them but whether an opposition group was effectively organised to challenge key sources of power and legitimacy. A continuing campaign would be best served in thinking carefully about who they went after and why. One of the reasons there has been such a stir caused by the boycott of the Sydney Biennale is because of how effective the strategy has been, at least in the short term, in achieving the goals of the artists. Successful political actions tend to be concise, well thought through and targeted attacks that go straight for a strategic goal.

What I hope more than anything else is that this protest will be the first in a new wave of activism that will breathe fresh life into a disillusioned Left and provide the basis for a broader campaign against Abbott’s neoliberal policies. There is a lot to think about and even more planning to be done in the weeks and months to follow. It will take a serious effort to reverse the current trends and rethink what a progressive Australia could look like in an increasingly neoliberal world.

Comments

People need encouragement and I’m not sure this is it. The organisers never promised us a rose garden and most of the people I was with were inspired and emboldened and might do more if nurtured. Clever organisers haven’t been able to organise and focus mass change or government overthrow in this country, so far … why should these well-meaning citizens suddenly have the answers? I dunno.

The only problem with the march and the reason why Abbott can afford to ignore it, is that the marchers don’t even know why they dislike Abbott, let alone what he has done that is so wrong. In essence therefore, they were marching for no reason and as such didn’t know why they were there. I’m sorry to disappoint you but the numbers at the march were a mere a drop in the ocean to those who support Abbott and coalition in its entirety.

I wasn’t there, but I’m hoping this march was more than centre-left partisan Panadol (the kind of which is evident every time I use Facebook). There are some pretty familiar issues with these things: The naivete or fraud of non partisanship (objectivity), the appeal of narrow anti Abbott (see anti Howard) politics, and the knee jerk hostility toward anti capitalists are among them..

Hard not to recall a certain literary mag editor snaring at a rally in the ACT 18 odd months ago as ‘we’re against stuff.’ Insightful, creative and original, not. Half expecting to see it re-gifted here.

A myriad of ‘groups’ being impacted by structural changes in a decaying economy. Seems the left have been, to this point, incapable of harnessing that illease and directing it productively. But snaring, like cool, is eternal. But dated.

Perhaps rather than writing this sort of critique, that does offer your expert opinion, promotes your profile and indicates what you might offer in terms of organisational skills; you could be giving your skills in effective strategising on the MiM Facebook page offering to set up a specific interest group.
I don’t know you and I don’t know how you have engaged with the MiM online since the weekend, so I might be being unfair to you. However, for me, it is the very tone of your piece ( for instance,” The march itself was the same as any number of marches that people like myself go to every other weekend.”) that stops the “organised” left from gaining momentum and traction with people who have similar values and don’t usually attend protests.
I think it is so refreshing that so many people have worked out if we want change we have to do it for ourselves and not rely on the “professionals.”
Please, if you aren’t helping actively build on the momentum, start. Your idea for smaller focus groups is really spot on. We need people like you.
Lastly, as someone who was a ‘professional’ activist in the past this is my two cents worth – Maybe it’s my age, I’m not sure, but so much I read here on this site in leftist discussion just makes me yawn – because I think transformative change is heart centred. The political theory approach has bogged us down – it just pits people on the left or the right and the left just doesn’t get heard. It’s not engaging.
Thinking about what in past years was engaging I remember the reconciliation marches and the push to say sorry – so many australians got behind this, and I think it was because of the way the issues were presented. White Australian heart’s were touched. (By no means were all the objectives I would have liked achieved, but support for these issues was widespread and now Recognition is on the agenda.)
I hope what I’ve expressed is of some use and I really want to encourage the ‘professionals’ not to organise or hijack MiM but to skills share and facilitate the frustrated and inexperienced who want to be heard and want to demand this government to change its direction.
thanks

“Professional activism”. Do you need a piece of paper to qualify as one of those? Or is it more of a quantitative sort of title- based on the number of protests one attends? Can one identify as an “emerging activist”?

Thank goodness we have people to diagnose the organizational deficiencies protests- and to advocate for the necessity of structure from something other than that which naturally expresses itself.

The idea that “The event lacked an adequate articulation of a political position and appeared naive in its attempts to brand itself as a ‘non-partisan’ affair. If you’re against the government then you have taken sides. It may not be Labor’s, but you are certainly not the apolitical entity that you claim to be.”…Well, one would think that perhaps there WAS an articulation of something. Is there not such a thing as solidarity in general dissatisfaction? When they’re not patting themselves on the back, perhaps the said organizers can draw up the architecture of this “Progressive Australia”. This article denies the inherent authority of people, smothers voices of minority groups and deflects attention from the actual source of the problem: how can you lay a foundation for change when you can’t identify what the problem is?

“After the experience of Occupy, it is unclear why such an enormous event could have taken place without those with knowledge and experience offering more guidance and support to the organizers.” What a lot of self congratulatory, pseudo-authoritarian wankery. Can I say that here?

Alicia I applaud you!Pseudo-authoriatarian wankery indeed! Who needs trolls when you get the kind of response I got from Garry? Many people have not supported these ‘professionals’ in recent years because they are insensitive, ego centred and judgemental of others not sharing their language and supposedly ‘superior’ approach. The approach does not appeal to people’s sense of injustice – It lacks empathy and respect and it always sounds like the ‘professionals’ are speaking only to each other. In short – they’ve forgotten their audience of potential advocates and supporters. They’re patronising and elititist!